Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT593TriDel
1. Matter called. Shri A.L. Viswes-waran, learned representative for the appellants prays for deciding the case on merits as per the records available on the file. Accordingly, we have heard the learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal.2. Controversy herein is whether brake blocks manufactured by the appellants are to be classified under Tariff Heading 8607.00 as assessed by the lower authority or under Tariff sub-heading 6808.10 as contended by the appellants. It is the contention of the appellants that the function of the brake block which is the article under consideration is the same as that of brake lining falling under Tariff Heading 6808.10. The friction material in the present case is moulded along with the steel plate. It is further submitted that unlike the brake lining for vehicles like cars and trucks friction material is moulded with the steel plates like riveting or mounting the brake lining on the steel plates. In that case the brake lining material without the mounting has the s...
Sishan Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)177; 67(1997)DLT364
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) I have heard tile parties. Brief facts of case are that on 5.6.84, Harish Anand, the complainant Along with his friend Ashok Kumar, the deceased was going to Kashmere Gate from Rohtak Road via Mori Gate on two wheeler scooter bearing No. Dem 5929. The complainant was driving the scooter and his friend Ashok Kumar Was sitting on pillion. At about 5.36 p.m. when they turned towards Mori Gate after creasing the Mori Gate round about, one bus bearing No. Def 2927 which was driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner at fast speed, hit the scooter from behind. The front side of the bus hit the scooter. As a consequence of impact, the complainant and the scooter fell down on the left side and Ashok Kumar fell down on the right side.Left front wheel of the bus passed over the head of Ashok Kumar and as the driver did not stop the bus intanuy, the left rear wheel of the bus passed over his neck. The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that on 26.5.84 at about 5....
Metal Fitting (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT747TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming a duty demand of Rs. 8,72,272.01 on 2275.957 Metric tonnes of steel ingots against M/s. Surendra Alloys (herein after referred to party I) on the ground that the steel ingots were manufactured and cleared during the period 1-10-1988 to 13-1-1989 without payment of duty, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on M/s. Surendra Alloys and its two Directors, Shri S.K. Garg and Shri L.N. Garg and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Metal Fitting (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to party II) for knowingly acquiring/possessing/depositing/dealing in excisable goods which were liable to confiscation.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Surendra Alloys are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 7206.90 of the CETA, 1985 along with runners and risers classifiable under sub-heading 7204.90. They had installed an electric induction furnace of 25...
M.P. Caps P. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT332TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal.2. Brief facts of the case are that the show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that appellants have availed Modvat credit on aluminium sheets of a thickness more than 0.2 mm falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7606.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act without filing the declaration under Rule 57G. After adjudication the demand was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was imposed on the appellants. The appellants filed an appeal and in the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- but dismissed the appeal in respect of the demand of duty.3. Shri Roop Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have filed a declaration dated 28-4-1989 where they mentioned the inputs as aluminium coil sheets sub-heading No. 7607.10 and i...
Autolite (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC443Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur ordering confiscation of seized goods, allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, demanding duty on goods found short and demanding duty short paid by the unit by wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts and appropriating amount irregularly availed credit of and imposing penalty of Rs. 1000/-.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of head-lights and accessories thereof falling under sub-heading 8512.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, CETA). In the course of surprise visit by Anti Evasion staff, the following discrepancies were found - (2) There was shortage of 787 units of headlights of another model cleared without payment of duty. (3) There were suppression of the fact that in supplying headlights to M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, bulbs were also fitted and the value of such bulbs was not included in the value of headlights th...
Krimpex Synthetics Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi27; [1998]94CompCas495(Delhi); 1997(43)DRJ504
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition, is filed to impugn the order dated April 16, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi. The Appellate Authority gave, consent for continuation of the proceedings in Suit No. 1595/89 against the petitioner company and the insolvency petitions 8 to 13 of 1994 against the guarantors. However, it was made clear that in case any decree was obtained by respondent No. 3 against any of the properties of the petitioner company it shall not be executed without the prior consent of the Appellate Authority. The petitioners have omitted to give the relevant facts which culminated in the passing of the impugned order in the petition and these facts are brought on record in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. There is practically no denial in respect of the same. These in brief may be reproduced as follows: (i) In October, 1986 the petitioner company had approached the third respondent ...
Raj Mani Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1014; 1997CriLJ3879; 1997(3)Crimes273; 67(1997)DLT351; 1997(42)DRJ270
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for the murder of Dhani Ram, S/o Ram Nihar and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 26th November 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.3/88 in F.I.R. No.98/87 Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi(2) The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal by the appellant/convict, shortly stated, are that on 24th April 1987, at about 7.30 A.M. an information on telephone was received at the police station that dead body of a young man was lying near Village Sultan Puri in Indira Park. This information was recorded at Seriall No.7/A in the D.D.Register; that police party went to the place in the part near the D.D.A. office where the dead body was lying; thereforee, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination to the mortuary and the enquiry was initiated. ...
Khursheed Jahan and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1053; 67(1997)DLT362
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Petitioner No. 1 is the widow while petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of late Abdul Sattar. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India case of the petitioners is that Abdul Sattar was the co-owner to the extent of th share in the land measuring 31 bighas and 19 bids was comprised in Khasra No. 687 in Village Wazipur and that land was acquired vide Award No. 15/72-73 dated June 19,1972. In view of the acquisition of land, petitioners were conveyed through letter No. F. 20 (106) 93 LAC/CE/1475 dated April 25,1994 (Annexure P-4) by the respondents in regard to allotment of V/Stall No. 2 measuring 9.34 sq. metres at Csc Rajdhani Enclave, Peetampura, on a premium of Rs. 2,53,600.00 . After adjustment of the amount deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,075.00 towards the balance premium amount was to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter. It is alleged that Rajdhani Enclave, Peetampura, is not a lucrative site and the amount of the premium...
Chander Sakhi Khanna Vs. Guran Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)974; 66(1997)DLT889; 1997(41)DRJ550; 1997RLR331
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioner sought eviction against the respondent from the ground floor of premises bearing No.45/5, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The eviction was sought because the tenanted premises was required by the petitioner for herself and the members of her family dependent upon her for residence. It was the case of the petitioner that she Along with the members of her family was residing on the first floor of the premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine. Keeping in view large number of her family members, the accommodation with her was not sufficient to cater to their needs. Accordingly she required additional accommodation on the ground floor of the premises, hence the petition. (2) By the impugned order dated 4th Scptcmbcr,1996 learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) held that the petitioner was the owner/landlord of the premises in question. That the premises was let out for residential purpose. That the accommodation with her on the first floor...
Shrimani Arora Vs. A.K. Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)970; 67(1997)DLT140; 1997(41)DRJ547
Usha Mehra, J. (1) RESPONDENT/LANDLORD filed a petition for eviction against the present petitioner on the ground of his bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). It was respondent's case before the Additional Rent Controller that except the properly in question he had no other alternative suitable accommodation available to him. He has been forced by the circumstances to live in one room in his mother's house bearing No.D-7, N.D.S.E. Part-1, New Delhi. His family consisted of himself, his wife and one grown up daughter. It was not possible for all of them to sleep in one room. They per force have to sleep in the drawing room on. the floor. Thus the accommodation available at D-7, N.D.S.E. Part-1, New Delhi could not be called reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for his residence and for he residence of his family members dependent upon him for the purpose of residence. He had further pleaded that in house No.D-7, N.D.S.E., ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »